Go Back   AFA Forums > Secularism and Social Issues > Women's issues and equality

Women's issues and equality Safe zone for the discussion of women's rights and equality

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1451  
Old 5th March 2017, 05:59 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,123
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

On a flight back to Perf I had a girl Captainz. She must have just watched "Top Gun" or summat because she put teh pedal to the metal like she woz in charge of an F-14 Tomcat flying off a carrier. Great stuff! Best take-off evar. Probably not economical though.

Maybe in a previous life she woz an F-14 jockey or summat? She had an OZ accent so she woz no dirty foreign Amellican or nothin'.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #1452  
Old 8th March 2017, 05:48 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23,996
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

‘But the gender pay gap is a myth’: A conversation with a sceptic

Quote:
THE MALE SCEPTIC: I know it’s International Women’s Day because there was a free morning tea at work. I left when they started banging on about the Pay Gap …

ME: Don’t you mean the “so-called” pay gap?

Yes! It’s a myth just like the three-breasted woman.

Totally! Unless of course you believe “The Government” whose Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) puts the difference between men and women’s average fulltime weekly earnings at 17.7 per cent.

Yeah right. Show me a single job that has different rates for men and women.

The biggest pay gap is at the managerial level, where women are paid 26.5 per cent (on average, it’s a whopping $93,000) less than men.

Right now, there are also more men named John, Peter or David running ASX 200 companies than the total number of women. And at that chief executive level those women are earning almost $1 million less on average.

But because discrimination is technically illegal, it’s not usually as overt as an HR directive to pay Steve more than Sandra. During salary negotiations, for example, women are routinely offered a lower base rate salary than men, and then penalised when they try to negotiate — so their male counterparts end up getting more.

Women are “offered less” and “punished for negotiating”? Sounds like a feminist conspiracy theory. Where’s the research?

Glad you asked! Researchers at Harvard found that when women attempted to negotiate salary and conditions, they were not only shut down sooner (who needs their greedy yapping?), but viewed during the crucial hiring process as ‘not team players’.

The researcher participants viewed the men who negotiated, however, as ‘bold leaders’ and they were rewarded as such.
Closer to home, Australian researchers recently found that women are routinely given the conflicting advice to ‘be more confident’ but not ‘too assertive’.
On some level most women know this already, and are statistically less likely to try to negotiate. For example the Sony email hack revealed how much less Hollywood actresses get paid than their co-stars, because, as Jennifer Lawrence put it, they don’t want to be seen as “difficult”.

They should just get over it and grow a pair.

And risk being seen as un-hireable or having their job offer withdrawn? That’s if they even make it to the interview stage.

What do you mean? I’ve interviewed women! I even lost a job once to a woman!

Ouch! That’s gotta hurt. Seriously, though, studies show that when employers are given identical resumes (except some have a female name, some don’t) the “male” candidates were scrutinised less closely. “Female” resumes were annotated with comments like “I’d want proof that she actually got this grant” and “did she do this on her own?”
“Male” applicants were eventually much more likely to be offered an interview.
But a huge contributor to the pay gap is the fact that we put a lesser dollar value on professions seen as “women’s work” (eg childcare and social work) compared to male-dominated industries.
(Oh, did I mention that older women are also more likely to retire in poverty and are the fastest growing group of homeless people in Australia?)

So? If women want more money they should do jobs that society values more.

Funny you should say that. In terms of what professions actually contribute most to a healthy society, and also economically in terms of flow-on benefits, “childcare” came out number one. (Unfortunately two-year-olds don’t tend to be profitable. Unless they turn into stockbrokers, at which point they’re unlikely to trace their childhood carers and give them a tip.)
In contrast, certain jobs in the male dominated finance industry actually took money from society. Global financial crisis, anyone?

OK, that aside, CHOICES. Why don’t women just choose higher paying industries?

First up, they do, but for reasons outlined before they’re often kept from entering senior levels.
Also, companies frequently screen out women “of child-bearing age” (because who needs ’em?)
(This doesn’t just happen in male-dominated industries. A friend of mine was asked during an interview at a fabric store if she had any kids “because the last thing we need is employees taking time off work when Little Johnny gets sick”. Yes, that’s illegal. And yes, it happens anyway.)
Perhaps another reason that “women just choose higher paying industries” is because they are conditioned from a young age to see themselves as less capable. Researchers at New York University found that girls as young as six already see themselves as less intelligent than boys. Not surprising when toy laptops marketed to girls were found to have fewer capabilities than otherwise identical versions marketed to boys. Did they think girls would be so blinded by the pink packaging they wouldn’t notice their toy pretty much sucked?

Whatever, they’re kids. Anyway, I work long hours — why shouldn’t I be paid more? Every woman I know leaves right on 5.

Three words: Unpaid domestic labour. The World Economic Forum estimates that women do on average three hours and 17 minutes more unpaid work each day than men. So while you’re slogging away after five, so are the women who had to ‘clock off’ — the difference is you’re the one getting paid.

OK, maybe there are a couple of legitimate reasons women get paid less, but —

Whoops! I almost forgot the “pink tax”, where businesses routinely charge women more for identical products and services, just because! Cars. Razors. Dry-cleaning. Identical haircuts. Deodorant. Even pens, for crying out loud. Target even used to charge girls $49.99 for scooters identical in all but colour to “boy” scooters ($24.99).

Lemme get this straight: Women have a harder time getting job interviews, then when they do get hired they’re penalised for negotiating. They’re promoted less frequently, especially if they have a child who might one day get sick (even though good parenting has exponential benefits to society). They come home and do the lion’s share of housework and child-rearing, then at the end of the day they pay more for a haircut, and retire in poverty? That’s crazy. Why aren’t they rioting in the streets?
They are.
My bold.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary

Last edited by wolty; 8th March 2017 at 05:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #1453  
Old 9th March 2017, 07:46 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23,996
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

International Women's Day 2017: Iceland becomes first country in the world to make firms prove equal pay

Quote:
The Nordic nation has pledged to eradicate the gender pay gap by 2022

On International Women's Day, Iceland became the first country in the world to force companies to prove they pay all employees the same regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality or nationality,

The country's government announced a new law that will require every company with 25 or more staff to gain a certificate demonstrating pay equality.

Iceland is not the first country to introduce a scheme like this - Switzerland has one, as does the US state of Minnesota - but Iceland is thought to be the first to make it a mandatory requirement.


Equality and Social Affairs Minister Thorsteinn Viglundsson said that "the time is right to do something radical about this issue."

"Equal rights are human rights. We need to make sure that men and women enjoy equal opportunity in the workplace. It is our responsibility to take every measure to achieve that," he said.

The move comes as part of a drive by the Nordic nation to eradicate the gender pay gap by 2022.

In October, thousands of female employees across Iceland walked out of workplaces at 2.38pm to protest against earning less than men. After this time in a typical eight-hour day, women are essentially working without pay, according to unions and women's organisations.

Iceland has been at the forefront of establishing pay equality, having already introduced a minimum 40 per cent quota for women on boards of companies with more than 50 employees.

The country has been ranked the best in the world for gender equality by the World Economic Forum for eight years running, but despite this, Icelandic women still earn 14 to 18 per cent less than men, on average,

This compares to the UK's gender pay gap stands at 17.5 per cent and the average of the OECD group of industrialised nations of 15.5 per cent

Should the new legislation pass through the Icelandic parliament as expected, the government wants to implement it by 2020.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Reply With Quote
Like Darwinsbulldog liked this post
  #1454  
Old 16th March 2017, 05:22 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23,996
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

5 Ways The MRA Indoctrinates New Members With Cult Tactics

Quote:
If you've spent any time on the internet, which you probably have considering you are on it right now, you may have encountered the special brand of internet civilians that call themselves Men's Rights Activists. They hang out in a place called The Red Pill, which is a group on Reddit that describes itself as a "Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men." In other words, men aren't getting laid like they used to, and that makes them mean mad!

When I first heard about The Red Pill I wrote it off as simply another group of sexually frustrated baby boys who hate women. While their arguments were infuriating, I figured they were essentially a sad dad's club with little effect on people outside their group. But I did a little more investigating and after looking into it I realized The Red Pill is more harmful than I had thought. It's basically a cult. You know, like Scientology.

In May 1997, Philip Zimbardo published a piece for the American Psychological Association titled "What Messages Are Behind Today's Cults?" The practices of The Red Pill line up with Zimbardo's findings. A former Red Pill member even wrote an entry in the RedPillDetox group about how he believed he had been brainwashed into joining a cult when he was a part of the group. Also, the fact that a RedPillDetox exists for ex-members to help each other deprogram their beliefs doesn't bode well for the MRA's existence. While there isn't a quantitative list of what defines a cult, experts in psychology agree on a few telltale signs. Perhaps this is why Scientology views psychiatry as the enemy and bringer of death.

And guess what? Much like Scientology, The Red Pill fits the description of a cult in a disturbing way. Cults are not only harmful to society but for its members as well. In fact, it may be arguably more harmful to its members than for the friends and family they've isolated themselves from. The Red Pill's existence is like a studded butt plug that everyone has to share. So how exactly is it a cult? Well ...

5
"Nobody Decides To Join A Cult." -Philip Zimbardo

Much like hipsters in 2007, you can spot one by how mad it gets when you call it a hipster. Cults don't call themselves cults. They call themselves churches, or clubs, or your friends.


Two common recruiting tactics The "Church" of Scientology uses are stress tests and personality tests. They target people who suffer from blocks in their relationships, career, and other endeavors ... so just about any person who is alive enough to operate a number two pencil. When new recruits take these tests (which are in no way scientific) the recruiters can tailor their pitch to present a religion that is an exact fit for their insecurities. Members join Scientology to seek a better life and are promised a path to achieving their goals through the church.

The Red Pill is similar, but instead of self-actualization, their goals revolve around boner distribution. Said ExRedPill on his experience, "I was joining a cool fucking group of cool fucking guys who were going to teach me how to do cool fucking things like getting laid." You can imagine how this might be appealing to someone that hasn't had much luck with women in the past. The Red Pill, like Scientology, preys on the insecurities of people to recruit new members into their cult.

What separates The Red Pill and Scientology from any another community group looking to grow its members? According to Zimbardo, "They become 'cults' when they are seen as deceptive, defective, dangerous, or as opposing basic values of their society." Which brings me to ...
More at link.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Reply With Quote
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  #1455  
Old 17th March 2017, 07:28 AM
Lord Blackadder's Avatar
Lord Blackadder Lord Blackadder is offline
Minister for Religious Genocide
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Melbourne: a small village on Mars just outside the capital city, Wibble
Posts: 5,965
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

Cracked (where above comes from) has quite the feminist bent at times, and do write some very good articles on gender inequality. Amazingly, the comments section in these articles isn't as rabid as you'd think.


Sent from my iPhone using magic technology thingy application thingy.
__________________
If atheism were true, why do cats have pretty stripes on them?
Reply With Quote
Like wolty liked this post
  #1456  
Old 20th March 2017, 10:40 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23,996
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

Offside: the shocking moment female footballers were banned for 50 years

Quote:
A new play spotlights the era when female players were sidelined by the FA and shows they are still kicking against prejudice today

In 1921, the Football Association ruled the sport “quite unsuitable for females and … not to be encouraged”. For the next 50 years, women were banned from playing on FA pitches. A new theatre show, Offside, brings this hidden history to light. “So many people were unaware that there had been a ban,” says the show’s co-writer Sabrina Mahfouz, “even people who are playing football now”.

The play emerged from Caroline Bryant’s passion and frustration. A lifelong football fan, she was never able to play for a team when she was growing up. Decades later, as artistic director of the company Futures Theatre, which is committed to promoting equality for women, it seemed to her an injustice that was ripe for dramatisation. “Football is so much a part of British and world culture,” says Bryant. “Why are women excluded from it?”

Poet Hollie McNish, who wrote the play with Mahfouz, describes the women’s game as an “amazing little microcosm of the history of women’s rights”. Over the years, it’s been caught up with the fight for equality in a variety of areas. The rational dress movement of the late 19th century was partly driven by women fighting to wear clothes that were suitable for playing sport, while women’s football in Scotland was closely linked to the campaign for female suffrage. These were the stories that Mahfouz and McNish sought out.
I shouldn't be but I am still surprised by the sexist attitude towards women doing things that men just took for granted. It's not that long ago and reminds me also of this story from March 14th.

Muirfield golf club to allow women to join for the first time


Quote:
Scottish course banned from hosting Open championship reverses decision against allowing female members in new ballot

Scotland’s Muirfield golf course will allow women to join for the first time, after members had a change of heart following the loss of the right to hold the prestigious Open championship.

The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers (HCEG), which runs the course, announced that 80% of members voted to allow women to become members, after a 93% turnout.

The R&A, which organises the Open championship, said Muirfield was back in the rotation to stage the world’s oldest major.

But women will have to join the back of the queue. Because of the membership waiting list it will be two to three years until the first woman joins the club, said the HCEG.
More at links.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Reply With Quote
  #1457  
Old 21st March 2017, 11:36 AM
virphen's Avatar
virphen virphen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 253
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

Well it just wouldn't be fair to let women jump to the front of the queue now, would it?
Reply With Quote
  #1458  
Old 24th March 2017, 04:09 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,929
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread



__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman
Reply With Quote
Dislike odd disliked this post
  #1459  
Old 26th March 2017, 09:27 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23,996
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Reply With Quote
Thank pipbarber, The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  #1460  
Old 21st April 2017, 03:24 PM
wolty's Avatar
wolty wolty is offline
See you at the snow....
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23,996
Default Re: All Things Sexist/ A Resource Thread

To the workplace sleazes of the world: your time is up


Quote:
"Some people are leg men, some are breast men," said an old boss of mine, as he stretched a clammy hand to my head and began to stroke. "I'm a hair man." I sat there paralysed. I was 19, living in New York and grateful for the work, which was flexible and well paid. He was the only one in the office, a sole operator, my only boss. So I sat still, typing, nauseated, pretending it was a joke.

When he came out the next day, reached out his hand again and began to caress my hair, I knew it wasn't. So, like any bold woman, I jumped up and ran downstairs to get a toasted bagel. I did this each time he approached, consuming a mountain of bagels, until I finally could afford to leave.

Scratch almost any working woman and she would have stories like this. They spilled out of many of my colleagues when we watched the Donald Trump and Roger Ailes harassment allegation avalanche descend. Many were creepy moments we had shrugged off as lame, even though they were demeaning. When I was a cadet, one of my peers was whisked outside and asked to pose in fishnet stockings because an editor needed a photograph for a sex worker story. Another hid in her room when on assignment because a drunken co-worker spent hours banging on her hotel door demanding to be let in.

It goes on: flashing, fumbling, frottage-ing, chair-sniffing, dirty text messaging.

But here's the crux: few complain and, when they do, not much happens. That's always been the way. Which is why the Bill O'Reilly story is a monumental one, given his power and influence, success and standing.

When O'Reilly was born in 1949, Harry Truman was president, Helen Keller was accused of being a communist and troops were being withdrawn from South Korea. And men who made "love moves" in the workplace were called "Felix the Feeler". Women were advised not to complain, but to give harassers a cold shoulder, or just move things around on your desk to create a barrier between you and unwelcome, hovering crotches or octopus arms.

A guide published in America in 1940 advised women not to be flattered if a man made a pass at them in the office, for blokes were "always eager to test batting averages".

Another book from the same era told women never to take their concerns "higher up" as the men were unlikely to be admonished; the popular view was "a girl usually brings these things upon herself". If in doubt, they said, quit.

For a century of working life for women, the message has been the same: if you object to being sexually harassed by your boss, you will only be harmed further.

Which is why, when Bill O'Reilly was forced out of Fox News by a pragmatic Rupert Murdoch, it was the role of the younger Murdochs, James and Lachlan, that was the most interesting. These top two executives at 21st Century Fox are intent on creating a more modern workplace, with modern standards and modern consequences for men who harass or prey on their staff or colleagues. As The New York Times reported, they are "intent on steering the family ship far into a new century."

Not without resistance though. It has been almost three weeks since the Times exposed the large settlements paid out privately to women alleging O'Reilly had harassed them. As an investigation was carried out – uncovering more women and more allegations, more than 50 advertisers left O'Reilly's show. The stories were similar: clumsy sexual approaches, punishments for rebukes, leering, inappropriate remarks, requests to display cleavage. (O'Reilly says these charges are "unfounded"). Former chairman Roger Ailes had left Fox in July following another sexual harassment scandal.

But the ouster of O'Reilly, the top-rated cable TV host in America still remains astonishing. Could it be true that Rupert Murdoch, the 86-year-old mogul renowned for championing the improbable orbs of page three girls could sack a man for asking colleagues to show more of their breasts? That old-school Felix the Feelers might be treated not as cheeky blokes but discreditable, damaging distractions?

The ramifications could be enormous, especially in the media.

Consider these figures: according to a study by the Women in Media Initiative one out of every two female journalists has experienced harassment, most by colleagues or bosses. (In America, that figure has been found to be as high as two-thirds.) Compare this to a Human Rights Commission poll in 2003 that found only 28 per cent of women – and 7 per cent of men – in the wider workforce had been subject to sexual harassment.

But when it comes to tough decisions about potentially axing hosts and scalping the powerful, as O'Reilly's case shows, pressure from advertisers can prove crucial. In many ways, money remains the most potent force in ushering in the cool winds of change – a century too late, but nonetheless – and is frankly far more effective than constructing barricades on your desk.
__________________
.
.
.


The Nizkor Project- Logical Fallacies

Atheist: n; A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Reply With Quote
Like Strato liked this post
Thank pipbarber thanked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 05:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.